1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Conservative Party: Those other people

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by q974739, 19 Dec 2015.

  1. q974739

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 4 Feb 2009

    Posts: 1,154

    Separating out a thread from the Labour party thread, because it's about the Conservatives....



    I think that's all the big posts. Before we start, JeditOjanen, do you want to retract "in the belief that they could ram them through the Lords avoiding thorough scrutiny". It would be very hard for you to prove this attribution of motive, given that this is the legally correct way for them to do this.

    Perfectly happy to accept that they used the obviously correct legal route happy that it would have less scrutiny, but to say that they "hoped to ram it through" is, I think, impossible for you to prove.

    More to the point, it's an irrelevancy compared to the actually interesting constitutional issue.
     
  2. JeditOjanen

    Soldato

    Joined: 7 Feb 2011

    Posts: 6,056

    No, I wouldn't. The Tories' move against the Lords hasn't been made because the Lords blocked the tax credit changes, because they didn't - that motion was defeated heavily. The Lords instead voted not to pass the cuts until Osborne had explained to the House how those cuts affected the working poor, then again to postpone the cuts for three years during which time a proper review of the proposal would be made. Within an hour this was declared a "constitutional crisis" demanding that the powers of the upper House be reviewed.

    If the Tories weren't bothered about scrutiny of their proposals, why did they attempt to use the route that allowed the least debate of those proposals then immediately attack the people who only didn't let them through because they hadn't been thoroughly examined and declare intent to remove those people's ability to ever do the same thing again?
     
  3. q974739

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 4 Feb 2009

    Posts: 1,154

    Very well.

    Irrelevant to attribution of motive. Will come back to later, once that is resolved. Because one thing at a time.

    1) The current government has put *1400* less acts of secondary legislation through than in the last year as the previous government. If they're trying to avoid scrutiny, they're doing it the wrong way. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi

    2) There already existed a correct and legal way to alter the tax credits, as written into the law by the labour party. This is done explicitly to allow modifications without primary legislation. Why would the conservatives want to waste money putting together a full act when it's not legally required?

    3) The measure was part of the budget. It doesn't get any higher profile then that. This measure was on national news.

    4) This measure was viewed as part of the budget - secondary legislation to tidy up and apply details. Not something requiring a full act.

    5) In order to bring this as primary legislation it would have had to be delayed until the queens speech at the next opening of parliament. So would have been delayed for a minimum of 18 months, plus bill time.

    So that's 5 reasons why it made sense for the conservatives to move this as secondary legislation. Now, please provide evidence that this was secondary legislation purely to avoid scrutiny - actual evidence.

    (For reference, as I've said, I think it was handy for the conservatives to do it as secondary. Happy to take the reduced scrutiny, but that's not the same as choosing this route to ram it through. But I'm happy to look at evidence. I always am.)

    Actions taken by others have no relevance to the originating motive.
    (Edit to correct an enumeration error)
     
  4. SPG

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 28 Jul 2010

    Posts: 7,780

    So the national debt has doubled to 1.5 trillion since our wonderful boys in blue have taken hold.

    Well done I have to say.........
     
  5. Vonhelmet

    Caporegime

    Joined: 28 Jun 2005

    Posts: 48,104

    Location: On the hoods

    Would labour have done things any better? It's literally impossible to say.
     
  6. Monkeynut

    Soldato

    Joined: 7 Nov 2007

    Posts: 6,598

    Location: Unknown

    It despairs me that these are the only choices.
     
  7. Vonhelmet

    Caporegime

    Joined: 28 Jun 2005

    Posts: 48,104

    Location: On the hoods

    Agreed :/
     
  8. q974739

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 4 Feb 2009

    Posts: 1,154

    Um, it's not doubled. Increased by about 50%, from ~1 trillion in 2010 to ~1.5 trillion. It's not doubled.
     
  9. PermaBanned

    Capodecina

    Joined: 7 Jul 2009

    Posts: 16,234

    Location: Newcastle/Aberdeen

    As a firmly Keynesian party, almost certainly.
     
  10. Klo

    Mobster

    Joined: 20 Nov 2005

    Posts: 4,004

    Location: South East

    Perhaps, but hopefully the income inequality etc wouldn't be so bad. If we are going to have high debt, I'd rather have high debt and a better society.
     
  11. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 50,083

    Location: Plymouth

    Labour doubled our debt as well, but they did over half the work during the boom period of the cycle.

    Or are you suggesting that, on inheriting labour's large budget deficit, the Tories didn't cut enough to prevent the debt rising further?
     
  12. MrMoonX

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 31 Dec 2007

    Posts: 10,034

    id love to see the figures on "half the work"

    I think this post proves you're a dirty tory.
     
  13. Caged

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 24,470

    Osborne had a chance to set his own targets on the deficit and missed those by a massive margin. Now I'm not convinced that eliminating the deficit is the number one priority to the detriment of everything else (recent history tells us that if people have no money to spend then the economy sits on tickover indefinitely), but the Tories certainly did for a few years at least.

    Is deficit elimination only vital if it's happening when you're the opposition or when you can still get away with blaming Labour for it?
     
    Last edited: 28 Dec 2015
  14. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 50,083

    Location: Plymouth

    In 1999, the debt was approx £340bn, by 2006/2007, well before the crisis started, it had grown to £552bn.

    http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5326/economics/government-spending/

    No doubt you will now claim the debt and credit fuelled boom meant this wasn't a huge growth in GDP terms, but debt isn't issued or paid back as a percentage of gdp, but in actual money...
     
  15. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 50,083

    Location: Plymouth

    The urgency of deficit elimination depends on many factors, but my post was in response to those blaming Osborne for the debt increase, which was a direct result of the high inherited deficit.
     
  16. Caged

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 24,470

    But Osborne set his own targets when he had all the information in front of him, and still missed those. I don't think anybody is trying to hold anyone accountable for things that happened when they weren't even in office, but he can absolutely be judged on his performance since.

    If it wasn't realistic to meet his own targets then he shouldn't have set them. He certainly shouldn't have cut as fast or as deep in an effort to hit those targets and then waste three years with stagnant growth. The problem was that a central election campaign element was this deficit elimination pledge and the constant reminder that it was like a family budget. Backtracking on that would have been difficult even with the press on-side.
     
    Last edited: 28 Dec 2015
  17. MrMoonX

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 31 Dec 2007

    Posts: 10,034

    This basically, the Tories dumbed down economics so they could blame labour and the electorate swallowed their deficit propaganda, now we see a situation whet George is doing just as bad, even whilst cutting everything and privatising his own mother.
     
  18. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 50,083

    Location: Plymouth

    What would you have had him do differently, remembering you have opposed pretty much every cut in state spending? It also worth noting before you start that taxing 'the rich' doesn't work, so if your answer is tax increases, they would actually be across the board.
     
  19. Danthus

    Capodecina

    Joined: 5 Jun 2010

    Posts: 15,375

    After six years, point the finger at the other lot really doesn't wash.
     
  20. PermaBanned

    Capodecina

    Joined: 7 Jul 2009

    Posts: 16,234

    Location: Newcastle/Aberdeen

    Keynesian economics says that you spend in time of recession to keep the economy going, so that people still have money to spend on goods and services. If you cut during a dip then economic activity is reduced and the economy stagnates, as we have seen in the past five years. There is no doubt in my mind that, had Brown won in 2010, debt would be far lower than it currently is as a percentage of GDP and the country would be in a much better position overall. Bit of a massive hypothetical at this point considering the number of things it would have influenced. The Indyref most notably...